When The NY Times and the LA times published their exposes on the wiretap programs in December, and then USA Today published its follow up report last week the outrage was incredible.  And it now appears somewhat dishonest and scripted.

The Bush Administration has consistently said that congress was briefed about the program:

Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping

He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program’s activities.

And yet despite this, the halls of congress and the airwaves reverberate with the howls of outrage from our incensed lawmakers.  So can the two bereconciled?  yep.

Michelle Malkin reports today some interesting facts about the program’ congressional oversight.  Turns out that congress was briefed, or at least the respective intelligence committees.

Nancy Pelosi had said this:

"the briefings have been so heavily classified as to make it hard for Democrats to ignore that characterization, but if the briefings have been so regular, why won’t the administration release the dates and lengths of these allegedly regular briefings?"

Asked and answered then.  Michelle Malkin has the logs on here website here but here is a list of who and when:

SENATE

Intelligence Committee members:

The current chairman, Pat Roberts, R-Kan: 10.
The top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia: eight.
A former chairman, now-retired Bob Graham, D-Fla.: four.
A former chairman, Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: four.
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: two.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: two.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. two.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.: two.
Kit Bond, R-Mo.: two.

Other senators:

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.: two.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: two.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: one.
Top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii: one.
A former minority leader, now-retired Tom Daschle, D-S.D.: one.

HOUSE

Intelligence Committee members:

The top Democrat, Jane Harman of California: eight.
A former chairman, now-retired Porter Goss, R-Fla.: seven.
The current chairman, Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.: seven.
Heather Wilson. R-N.M.: three.
John McHugh, R-N.Y.: two.
Mike Rogers, R-Mich.: two.
Mac Thornberry, R-Texas: two.
Rush Holt, D-N.J.: two.
Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.: two.
Jo Ann Davis, R-Va.: one.
Bud Cramer, D-Ala.: one.
Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa: one.

Other representatives:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: six.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: three.
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s defense panel, Bill Young, R-Fla.: two.
The defense panel’s top Democrat, John Murtha of Pennsylvania: two.
Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: one.

Huh?  She who has been complaining about the secrecy was briefed 6 tiems?

Yep, and in fact it turns out she admitted this back in December also:

Nancy Pelosi: I Was Briefed on NSA Program

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi confessed late Saturday that she signed off on President Bush’s decision to have a top intelligence agency conduct "unspecified activities" to gather intelligence on possible terrorists operating inside the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

So using Democrat logic, she was briefed on it before she wasn’t briefed on it?  She signed off on it, before she had no knowledge of it?

USA Today barely skipped a beat before pointing out that the briefings were so secret that they essentially don’t count as oversight.

Oversight? What oversight? Congress briefed, then gagged

When anti-terror programs of questionable legality are revealed — such as the National Security Agency’s snooping on phone calls and records — President Bush hastens to point out that members of Congress from both parties have been "briefed."

That’s as it should be. Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch’s intelligence operations.

 …But…

From all indications, however, that oversight is badly broken.

Wednesday’s briefing of the Senate and House intelligence committees by the head of the NSA typifies the problems. It was overdue. It was spurred by partisan bickering. And, because members are sworn to secrecy, it has the effect of limiting how much they can say at today’s Senate confirmation hearing for former NSA chief Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

As I just pointed out, they were not as overdue as USA Today contends.  And making them classified protects the integrity of the program, which if legal, is a tool in the fight against Al Qaeda.  Making them public makes it pointless to have them at all.  I am sure that would please some civil libertarians, but most American’s have a slightly more realistic virew about this issue, and support the programs.

But the USA today article does point out some of the posturing:

Democrats played helpless victims. Once The New York Times revealed the wiretapping program, for instance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he’d had "concerns" as early as July 2003. His response? He wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney and put a copy in his safe.

Like Pelosi, he now expresses concerns, but as a member of the intelligence committee, who meets in classified meetings, he could ahve raised a much greater stink then writing a letter.

The letter was essentially a failsafe, a parachute to prove he was being a good little democrat if the political climate changed.  Just like Pelosi’s unspecified concerns, it is appeasement practices to make sure the anti war left knows they are still on their side.

The fact is, and most sensible people understand this, many things are secret for a reason.  Shouting from the rooftops that we are going to wiretap terrorists just enables them to make it harder.  That is why these leaks should be dealt with much more harshly then they are, including prosecuting sdome of the reporters and papers that print them.

Yes yes, I know, freedom of the press.  But I don’t recall the 1st Amendment authorizing the press to be seditious, treasonous or aid and abet our enemies by conducting domestic espionage on their behalf.  That is essentially the climate we not face.  And it’s sick.  The old school media cares more for sellign papers then security.

They have only themselves to blame for their being the target of leak investigations, which I blogged about here.

Had this been WW2 they would have published the D-Day invasion plans.

I am not saying the Government is without fault, and I do not oppose an investigation into the legality of the programs.  I am merely saying that the media bears no desire to accept any consequence for their actions when they are an active part of a security breach, and that too many politicians, many with prior knowledge, are using this for political leverage, not any altruist notions of freedom, liberty or moral outrage.

Its political pandering at its absolute ugliest, on both sides of the aisle.

 …But…

From all indications, however, that oversight is badly broken.

Wednesday’s briefing of the Senate and House intelligence committees by the head of the NSA typifies the problems. It was overdue. It was spurred by partisan bickering. And, because members are sworn to secrecy, it has the effect of limiting how much they can say at today’s Senate confirmation hearing for former NSA chief Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

As I just pointed out, they were not as overdue as USA Today contends.  And making them classified protects the integrity of the program, which if legal, is a tool in the fight against Al Qaeda.  Making them public makes it pointless to have them at all.  I am sure that would please some civil libertarians, but most American’s have a slightly more realistic virew about this issue, and support the programs.

But the USA today article does point out some of the posturing:

Democrats played helpless victims. Once The New York Times revealed the wiretapping program, for instance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he’d had "concerns" as early as July 2003. His response? He wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney and put a copy in his safe.

Like Pelosi, he now expresses concerns, but as a member of the intelligence committee, who meets in classified meetings, he could ahve raised a much greater stink then writing a letter.

The letter was essentially a failsafe, a parachute to prove he was being a good little democrat if the political climate changed.  Just like Pelosi’s unspecified concerns, it is appeasement practices to make sure the anti war left knows they are still on their side.

The fact is, and most sensible people understand this, many things are secret for a reason.  Shouting from the rooftops that we are going to wiretap terrorists just enables them to make it harder.  That is why these leaks should be dealt with much more harshly then they are, including prosecuting sdome of the reporters and papers that print them.

Yes yes, I know, freedom of the press.  But I don’t recall the 1st Amendment authorizing the press to be seditious, treasonous or aid and abet our enemies by conducting domestic espionage on their behalf.  That is essentially the climate we not face.  And it’s sick.  The old school media cares more for sellign papers then security.

They have only themselves to blame for their being the target of leak investigations, which I blogged about here.

Had this been WW2 they would have published the D-Day invasion plans.

I am not saying the Government is without fault, and I do not oppose an investigation into the legality of the programs.  I am merely saying that the media bears no desire to accept any consequence for their actions when they are an active part of a security breach, and that too many politicians, many with prior knowledge, are using this for political leverage, not any altruist notions of freedom, liberty or moral outrage.

Its political pandering at its absolute ugliest, on both sides of the aisle.

So using Democrat logic, she was briefed on it before she wasn’t briefed on it?  She signed off on it, before she had no knowledge of it?

USA Today barely skipped a beat before pointing out that the briefings were so secret that they essentially don’t count as oversight.

Oversight? What oversight? Congress briefed, then gagged

When anti-terror programs of questionable legality are revealed — such as the National Security Agency’s snooping on phone calls and records — President Bush hastens to point out that members of Congress from both parties have been "briefed."

That’s as it should be. Congress is supposed to oversee the executive branch’s intelligence operations.

 …But…

From all indications, however, that oversight is badly broken.

Wednesday’s briefing of the Senate and House intelligence committees by the head of the NSA typifies the problems. It was overdue. It was spurred by partisan bickering. And, because members are sworn to secrecy, it has the effect of limiting how much they can say at today’s Senate confirmation hearing for former NSA chief Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

As I just pointed out, they were not as overdue as USA Today contends.  And making them classified protects the integrity of the program, which if legal, is a tool in the fight against Al Qaeda.  Making them public makes it pointless to have them at all.  I am sure that would please some civil libertarians, but most American’s have a slightly more realistic virew about this issue, and support the programs.

But the USA today article does point out some of the posturing:

Democrats played helpless victims. Once The New York Times revealed the wiretapping program, for instance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he’d had "concerns" as early as July 2003. His response? He wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney and put a copy in his safe.

Like Pelosi, he now expresses concerns, but as a member of the intelligence committee, who meets in classified meetings, he could ahve raised a much greater stink then writing a letter.

The letter was essentially a failsafe, a parachute to prove he was being a good little democrat if the political climate changed.  Just like Pelosi’s unspecified concerns, it is appeasement practices to make sure the anti war left knows they are still on their side.

The fact is, and most sensible people understand this, many things are secret for a reason.  Shouting from the rooftops that we are going to wiretap terrorists just enables them to make it harder.  That is why these leaks should be dealt with much more harshly then they are, including prosecuting sdome of the reporters and papers that print them.

Yes yes, I know, freedom of the press.  But I don’t recall the 1st Amendment authorizing the press to be seditious, treasonous or aid and abet our enemies by conducting domestic espionage on their behalf.  That is essentially the climate we not face.  And it’s sick.  The old school media cares more for sellign papers then security.

They have only themselves to blame for their being the target of leak investigations, which I blogged about here.

Had this been WW2 they would have published the D-Day invasion plans.

I am not saying the Government is without fault, and I do not oppose an investigation into the legality of the programs.  I am merely saying that the media bears no desire to accept any consequence for their actions when they are an active part of a security breach, and that too many politicians, many with prior knowledge, are using this for political leverage, not any altruist notions of freedom, liberty or moral outrage.

Its political pandering at its absolute ugliest, on both sides of the aisle.

 …But…

From all indications, however, that oversight is badly broken.

Wednesday’s briefing of the Senate and House intelligence committees by the head of the NSA typifies the problems. It was overdue. It was spurred by partisan bickering. And, because members are sworn to secrecy, it has the effect of limiting how much they can say at today’s Senate confirmation hearing for former NSA chief Michael Hayden to head the CIA.

As I just pointed out, they were not as overdue as USA Today contends.  And making them classified protects the integrity of the program, which if legal, is a tool in the fight against Al Qaeda.  Making them public makes it pointless to have them at all.  I am sure that would please some civil libertarians, but most American’s have a slightly more realistic virew about this issue, and support the programs.

But the USA today article does point out some of the posturing:

Democrats played helpless victims. Once The New York Times revealed the wiretapping program, for instance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he’d had "concerns" as early as July 2003. His response? He wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney and put a copy in his safe.

Like Pelosi, he now expresses concerns, but as a member of the intelligence committee, who meets in classified meetings, he could ahve raised a much greater stink then writing a letter.

The letter was essentially a failsafe, a parachute to prove he was being a good little democrat if the political climate changed.  Just like Pelosi’s unspecified concerns, it is appeasement practices to make sure the anti war left knows they are still on their side.

The fact is, and most sensible people understand this, many things are secret for a reason.  Shouting from the rooftops that we are going to wiretap terrorists just enables them to make it harder.  That is why these leaks should be dealt with much more harshly then they are, including prosecuting sdome of the reporters and papers that print them.

Yes yes, I know, freedom of the press.  But I don’t recall the 1st Amendment authorizing the press to be seditious, treasonous or aid and abet our enemies by conducting domestic espionage on their behalf.  That is essentially the climate we not face.  And it’s sick.  The old school media cares more for sellign papers then security.

They have only themselves to blame for their being the target of leak investigations, which I blogged about here.

Had this been WW2 they would have published the D-Day invasion plans.

I am not saying the Government is without fault, and I do not oppose an investigation into the legality of the programs.  I am merely saying that the media bears no desire to accept any consequence for their actions when they are an active part of a security breach, and that too many politicians, many with prior knowledge, are using this for political leverage, not any altruist notions of freedom, liberty or moral outrage.

Its political pandering at its absolute ugliest, on both sides of the aisle.